American Politics IV: 1400 Reasons Why(A Stimulus Serial)

[San Lumen]

What are we defining as a city or town? What minimum population are we using?

Well, depends in which country you live, I guess. The UK has strict rules as to what defines a town and a city.

It does vary. Here in New York our smallest city is Little Falls with a population of just under 5000 which is the minimum population required to become a city. The rules vary across the country.

What are the strict rules?

[Ifreann]

But you are giving people 2 choices, be homeless and die, or be forced to live in a city.
That's both quite fascist and dictatorial.

How about we let people live in towns.

What are we defining as a city or town? What minimum population are we using?

If it has a cathedral, it's a city.

[Sundiata]

Three options.

You can live in a town if you want, I'm just not going to waste my tax dollars on everyone's whims. I'm not a democracy genie.

Ah so die in the towns then.

I'm not paying for someone's silly townhouse if I'm already giving them a home in the city for free. I'm not killing people, I'm housing people.

Come on man.

[Esalia]

Reverse Pol Pot?

I guess, I don't know. You can take the government option if you want but it should exist.

What if people don't want to live in cities?

Then it's people's choice if they want to risk being homeless.

Or we extend the programs towards helping the homeless to include towns, because neglecting a good chunk of your population sounds like a perfect idea.

As much as I like cities I agree forcing people to live there is dictatorial.

You don't have to live there just because I don't want you to be homeless.

You so don't want them to be homeless you refuse to provide housing in areas with homelessness so long as that area isn't a city.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Ah so die in the towns then.

I'm not paying for someone's silly townhouse if I'm already giving them a home in the city for free. I'm not killing people, I'm housing people.

Come on man.

Maybe you could just, like, not try and forcibly relocate people? Turns out a lot of people dislike living in the city.

[Sundiata]

I'm not paying for someone's silly townhouse if I'm already giving them a home in the city for free. I'm not killing people, I'm housing people.

Come on man.

Maybe you could just, like, not try and forcibly relocate people? Turns out a lot of people dislike living in the city.

Three options.

You can live in a town if you want, I'm just not going to waste my tax dollars on everyone's whims. I'm not a democracy genie.

So what about us rural folks? How do you expect to eat if everybody has to live in cities? Corporate collective farms? Collectivisation of land didn't work well in Russia or China.

You don't have to live in cities. It's your choice man.

[San Lumen]

Tell me about it. This a guy who said after he shut down the state if your so desperate for a job go work in a hospital.that’s not the only out of touch comment he made he also said if your business goes under blame me.

It was a string of bad decisions, as NY felt the brunt of the infection pretty bad. I would even say your healthcare system collapsed. But his command about sending the elderly still infectious back to their nursing homes was pretty bad. Especially when certain aspects of the disease were unclear.

Yup and he comes off as increasingly out of touch with some of his mandates not to mention he won’t allow counties to implement mass vaccination plans and insists on everything being in phases.

[The New California Republic]

Ah so die in the towns then.

I'm not paying for someone's silly townhouse if I'm already giving them a home in the city for free. I'm not killing people, I'm housing people.

Come on man.

You have yet to explain the premise for what you are advocating: "towns waste space". You are being so evasive on explaining that.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Maybe you could just, like, not try and forcibly relocate people? Turns out a lot of people dislike living in the city.

So what about us rural folks? How do you expect to eat if everybody has to live in cities? Corporate collective farms? Collectivisation of land didn't work well in Russia or China.

You don't have to live in cities. It's your choice man.

And they starve. That isn't much of a choice.

[Ifreann]

Ah so die in the towns then.

I'm not paying for someone's silly townhouse if I'm already giving them a home in the city for free. I'm not killing people, I'm housing people.

Come on man.

Housing in the city is way more expensive than something comparable outside the city.

[Celritannia]

Ah so die in the towns then.

I'm not paying for someone's silly townhouse if I'm already giving them a home in the city for free. I'm not killing people, I'm housing people.

Come on man.

You are forcing people to be housed in cities.

And let's not forget, city accommodation is expansive, and hardly any private housing company would be willingly to give it up.
There is also the factor of disabilities to consider.

You know, you don't have to have a town house to live in social housing. You can build social accommodation in a town, much like Austria.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It was a string of bad decisions, as NY felt the brunt of the infection pretty bad. I would even say your healthcare system collapsed. But his command about sending the elderly still infectious back to their nursing homes was pretty bad. Especially when certain aspects of the disease were unclear.

Yup and he comes off as increasingly out of touch with some of his mandates not to mention he won’t allow counties to implement mass vaccination plans and insists on everything being in phases.

I think vaccination plans are all in statewide phases, though. It’s not just NY. Talking from living in both AR and now FL ay least, in both states the vaccination is done in phases. Counties follow the state plan.

[San Lumen]

Ah so die in the towns then.

I'm not paying for someone's silly townhouse if I'm already giving them a home in the city for free. I'm not killing people, I'm housing people.

Come on man.

What’s the minimum population for a city to have this free housing?

[Sundiata]

You so don't want them to be homeless you refuse to provide housing in areas with homelessness so long as that area isn't a city.

Yes, if you're getting a free home in the city that's regularly being maintained by the government then stop whining. I want you to live in the city but I'm not making you do it.

[Esalia]

Ah so die in the towns then.

I'm not paying for someone's silly townhouse if I'm already giving them a home in the city for free. I'm not killing people, I'm housing people.

Come on man.

But you're not housing people.

Your explicitly adding on unneeded conditions to housing. Nothing mandates that you solely build housing for the homeless in cities. Nothing's stopping you from spending the money that you would spend on an apartment housing the homeless in rural towns on building housing in those rural towns for those homeless.

There's nothing stopping you from housing all the homeless and not force the homeless in rural areas from moving to a city. If anything, you're making it harder to house people and all but guaranteeing that you won't solve homelessness because of some anti-rural reasoning.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You so don't want them to be homeless you refuse to provide housing in areas with homelessness so long as that area isn't a city.

Yes, if you're getting a free home in the city that's regularly being maintained by the government then stop whining. I want you to live in the city but I'm not making you do it.

Why, though? Like, you'd be wasting so much money doing this. City living is vastly more expensive than rural living.

[Shrillland]

Maybe you could just, like, not try and forcibly relocate people? Turns out a lot of people dislike living in the city.

So what about us rural folks? How do you expect to eat if everybody has to live in cities? Corporate collective farms? Collectivisation of land didn't work well in Russia or China.

You don't have to live in cities. It's your choice man.

Very well, I'll rephrase what I mean. Your tax dollars will still be needed on things like infrastructure and farm subsidies, otherwise food will be less common and more expensive. Are you at least willing to use your tax dollars to ensure urban folks get the food they need? Don't worry, I won't give everyone a repeat of yesterday's performances.

[Celritannia]

You so don't want them to be homeless you refuse to provide housing in areas with homelessness so long as that area isn't a city.

Yes, if you're getting a free home in the city that's regularly being maintained by the government then stop whining. I want you to live in the city but I'm not making you do it.

And how will people with disabilities cope?

[Esalia]

You so don't want them to be homeless you refuse to provide housing in areas with homelessness so long as that area isn't a city.

Yes, if you're getting a free home in the city that's regularly being maintained by the government then stop whining. I want you to live in the city but I'm not making you do it.

For one so often claiming sympathy, "we're giving you housing (just in an area you may not want to live in because I want to force you into the cities) so shut up" is incredibly unsympathetic.

[Ifreann]

You so don't want them to be homeless you refuse to provide housing in areas with homelessness so long as that area isn't a city.

Yes, if you're getting a free home in the city that's regularly being maintained by the government then stop whining. I want you to live in the city but I'm not making you do it.

You're telling people who don't exist to stop whining about an imaginary policy. You are inventing people who annoy you so you can be annoyed at them.

[Esalia]

Yes, if you're getting a free home in the city that's regularly being maintained by the government then stop whining. I want you to live in the city but I'm not making you do it.

Why, though? Like, you'd be wasting so much money doing this. City living is vastly more expensive than rural living.

And after claiming that housing the rural poor in their own towns is a waste of time and money too.

[Celritannia]

Yes, if you're getting a free home in the city that's regularly being maintained by the government then stop whining. I want you to live in the city but I'm not making you do it.

For one so often claiming sympathy, "we're giving you housing (just in an area you may not want to live in because I want to force you into the cities) so shut up" is incredibly unsympathetic.

So much for the Christian ideals of charity he professes.

[The New California Republic]

You so don't want them to be homeless you refuse to provide housing in areas with homelessness so long as that area isn't a city.

Yes, if you're getting a free home in the city that's regularly being maintained by the government then stop whining. I want you to live in the city but I'm not making you do it.

What is stopping us from building homes for the homeless in towns? There seems to be some kind of hard unassailable block here that, in your reasoning, is absolutely stopping it from being a possibility. Why?

[Sundiata]

You don't have to live in cities. It's your choice man.

And they starve. That isn't much of a choice.

Import food.

[Cannot think of a name]

Well then, they can leave their homes in the city and go do them. Towns waste space.

...wat.

Not intended to be an endorsement of anything Sundiata is saying, but also to move the conversation forward from the weird donut it's doing, this is not that far afield idea (while no one is really advocating just packing everyone into a few select places like MegaCities from 2000 AD comics...)

There are several ways in which supporting rural communities are inherently inefficient and are a drain on the system despite the mythology of rugged individualism. The energy, transportation, and environmental impact of providing resources to remote or spread out areas is a large outlay to a diminishing number of people. Some of those costs are absorbed by the people who live there, often with little financial resources themselves, in higher energy costs or spending more for staples like food (even if they can grow their own, they can't grow everything they need).

In essence there is an expense to having people live anywhere, but when you group them together you can serve the most more efficiently.

Though, and I"m sure I don't have to tell most people this, it's not that cut and dry. You pay more for less space in a city, and there are drawbacks (pandemic anyone...) to being stacked on top of each other. But there is an argument for saying that maybe we don't need to dedicate this many resources to sustaining people who don't want to have neighbors.

This is not something I'm 100% behind nor 100% disagree with. My ex is way better informed on this shit, did a whole masters thesis on the complexity a specific set of rural American communities and trying to distill what was essentially dumbed down to me years later in a single post is a recipe for disaster. So, take issue with the idea and discuss, but I'm not gonna be the one to defend any particular side. For all she knew about the burden of those places one of her favorite places on earth was a rural coastal town, so...not the expert, just wanted to move things forward an inch maybe.